Sunday, March 15, 2015

Science has been hijacked by corporate junk science, which pretends to be real science but is actually highly fraudulent. Here are the top 10 tricks it uses.

Corporate junk science is an all-pervadingpresence in our society. It’s everywhere. The scientific journals of
the entire world, offline and online, have been flooded with so much
fake science that it has, sad to say, become practically impossible for
the average person to wade through all of it and sort out the wheat from
the chaff. However, the fake science I am referring to here is not
unintentional or sloppy work, which is more of a minor problem in the
scheme of things (since it will eventually be corrected with due
diligence), but rather the deliberately fraudulent “scientific studies”
which are put out by major corporations with a definite agenda in mind –
usually establishing a fake scientific basis of “safety” for their
products, whether they be vaccines, mobile phones, GMOs, tobacco,
fluoride, soda or soft drinks, etc. It’s nothing more than corporate junk science, and many people, including doctors, scientists and academics, have been taken in hook, line and sinker by it.

It’s time to shine the light on this ugly phenomenon. Science is
meant to be about the pursuit of truth and understanding how our world
works. It is truly sickening to see the extent to which it has been
hijacked to serve corporate interests – to make a tiny, tiny 0.0001%
rich at the expense of harming and killing the rest of mankind.
A recent study
published on JAMA entitled “Research Misconduct Identified by the US
Food and Drug Administration” found some very disturbing things in its
sample of 57 studies that it analyzed:

“Fifty-seven published clinical trials were identified
for which an FDA inspection of a trial site had found significant
evidence of 1 or more of the following problems: falsification or
submission of false information, 22 trials (39%); problems with adverse
events reporting, 14 trials (25%); protocol violations, 42 trials (74%);
inadequate or inaccurate recordkeeping, 35 trials (61%); failure to
protect the safety of patients and/or issues with oversight or informed
consent, 30 trials (53%); and violations not otherwise categorized, 20
trials (35%).”

Take a look at this first finding. It states that 39% which is around 2/5 of studies committed data falsification!
How can we possibly trust medical science when the fraud is so blatant
and widespread? And it’s not as though the authors of these studies come
out and admit it. The study also found that:

“Only 3 of the 78 publications (4%) that resulted from
trials in which the FDA found significant violations mentioned the
objectionable conditions or practices found during the inspection. No
corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, or other comments
acknowledging the key issues identified by the inspection were
subsequently published.”

Another study
at PLOS ONE entitled “How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify
Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data”
concluded that:

“It is likely that, if on average 2% of scientists admit
to have falsified research at least once and up to 34% admit other
questionable research practices, the actual frequencies of misconduct
could be higher than this.”

In light of all of this, if we want the truth, we need to look at the
whole structure of how “science” works in the real world. We need to
get wise to the methods that are used by unscrupulous groups to further
their agenda. With that in mind, here is a list of the top 10 tricks
used by the corporatocracy to pull the wool over your eyes by
manipulating science and substituting their fake corporate junk science
instead (thanks to Webster Kehr of CancerTutor.com for compiling his instructive list, from which the below points are derived).

1. Substituting Synthetic for Natural Versions of a Nutrient

Those who know a little about nutrition probably realize by now that
there is a vast difference between a nutrient found in a food or plant,
and its synthetic counterpart artificially made in a lab. All vitamin C
is not created equal; some versions are more equal than others. The same
goes for other vitamins. It also applies to minerals, since some are
derived from plant or animal matter (“organic”) whereas others are
derived from rock (“inorganic”). The body can’t assimilate inorganic
minerals, so all those so-called “natural” supplements full of rock and
fossil-derived calcium are useless, and are actually harming your body
by causing calcification.
When the corporatocracy wants a result skewed against an
unpatentable natural solution and in favor of one of their patentable
products, they simply use the synthetic (and less potent) version of
that nutrient in the study and “find” that it is ineffective. Corporate
junk science at its best!

2. Isolating Nutrients to Remove their Power of Synergy

Here’s another trick used by corporate junk science. If it’s trying
to “scientifically prove” that a natural substance is ineffective,
rather than testing the whole substance, it will isolate certain
nutrients from it, declare them the only ones with any health benefit,
then find them ineffective. This is like taking a clove of garlic,
declaring that allicin is the only thing in it that could possibly do
any good for human health, and then disregarding the whole plant when
allicin doesn’t do everything you expected. The same goes for
when corporate junk science, intentionally or not, tests the wrong
nutrient and declares itself finished with testing.
Nature doesn’t work like this. Plants are complex organisms. Some are
composed of hundreds of different phytonutrients which work together
synergistically to produce wellness in the human body. Real science
would test the whole plant open-mindedly in a variety of ways to try to
discover and unlock the secret to its healing potential.

3. Contaminating the Tests

Webster Kehr mentions a case involving laetrile or amygdalin
(colloquially called vitamin B17). He writes that the “NIH contaminated
an already bogus pill being used in a study. Natural laetrile cannot and has never given
a patient the symptoms of cyanide poisoning. It simply is impossible.
The NIH refused to allow an alternative laetrile vendor to supply
natural laetrile for the study – so they could create a custom pill for
the study. In creating their custom bogus laetrile pill, it was not
enough for them to not have any natural laetrile in
the pill. A worthless pill would not have given any patient the
symptoms of cyanide poisoning. They also had to lace the pill with
inorganic cyanide so that the patients would have the symptoms of
cyanide poisoning.”
As explained in my article “Natural Cancer Cure Laetrile (Amygdalin, Vitamin B17) Works Better than Chemotherapy“,
the cyanide contained in apricot kernels, apple seeds, etc. is a
selective cancer cell killer. It leaves healthy cells alone, because
they can disable the cyanide.

4. Altering the Treatment Plan

If corporate junk science can’t prove a natural substance itself is
ineffective, then it uses the trick of altering the treatment plan, so
that people are getting the correct amount of that substance. This could
be as simple as making the dosage too low or too high, or combining the
substance with other foods or drink which disable its healing effects,
or heating it, etc. Just like Big Pharma drugs, natural cures require a
patent to follow a correct dosage and treatment plan for them to be
successful in healing disease.

5. Getting Tricky with Statistics

Mark Twain once said that there are “lies, damn lies and statistics”.
Corporate junk science often plays around with the numbers to emphasize
one thing and hide another thing. Big Biotech often does this with
their GMO studies, for instance, never allowing a study to exceed 90
days (after which the deleterious effects of GMOs begin to emerge).

6. The False Worship of Double Blind Studies

Are double blind studies always the gold standard? As Kehr points
out, “in many cases, a double blind study makes no sense in the world.
For example, how could you do a double blind study comparing a person
who refuses all orthodox cancer treatments with someone who goes through
chemotherapy? It is a stupid concept, because after one day a person
would know which group they were in … How can you compare chemotherapy
to Vitamin C in a double blind study? The chemotherapy group would have
intense pain, sickness, their hair will fall out, and so on. The Vitamin
C group would have no added pain, no sickness (except perhaps
diarrhea), and their hair will not fall out, etc.”

7. Selecting Patients Favorable to the Agenda

The selection protocol in determining which patients to choose for a
study is important, because by carefully selecting the patients in a
study, you can to a large extent control the outcome of the study. Kehr
gives examples of how the Mayo Clinic choose a narrow range of cancers
as opposed to Pauling and Cameron when testing the efficacy of vitamin C
as a natural cancer treatment.

“In June [2002], the New England Journal of Medicine, one
of the most respected medical journals, made a startling announcement.
The editors declared that they were dropping their policy stipulating
that authors of review articles of medical studies could not have
financial ties to drug companies whose medicines were being analyzed.
The reason? The journal could no longer find enough independent
experts. Drug company gifts and “consulting fees” are so pervasive that
in any given field, you cannot find an expert who has not been paid off
in some way by the industry. So the journal settled for a new standard:
Their reviewers can have received no more than $10,000 [per year] from
companies whose work they judge. Isn’t that comforting?

9. Controlling the Publicization of the Results

Most scientists are given contracts by the corporatocracy which
contain a clause forbidding them to publicize results that the funders
don’t like. This means that Big Pharma, Bir Agra, Big Biotech or whoever
it is has the legal right to suppress the results of any study they
don’t like – including being able to stop scientists from submitting
such studies to a journal.

10. Controlling the Funding and Hiding the Funders

Science is, to some extent, by the admissions of one of its branches
quantum physics, based on the state of the observer. So, it is
unsurprising that it can be manipulated by placing the people who have
your point of view in control. An outcome is more likely to be generated
when you have people expecting (or subconsciously intending) that
result. On top of this, results can be bought and the true finance
behind that bribery can be hidden through front groups, think tanks,
shell corporations, fake grassroots (astroturf) organizations and many
other means.
The 10 tricks do, of course, exist in addition to the massive
category of data falsification, where corporations omit and distort
results at will through all sorts of chicanery (e.g. not reporting
patients who suffer side effects and instead labeling them as
“non-compliant”).
Corporate junk science is like a cancer parasiting off the host and
destroying humanity’s attempt for knowledge and objectivity. The time
has come to expose it fully and restore truth.Please share this.